Inductive and Deductive Theory Generation from Case Studies:
The Experience of the MEGAPROJECT COST Action
Naomi Brookes
August 2012
Introduction and Aim
The aim of this short monograph is to explore the inductive and deductive approaches to theory generation from case studies and to delineate the implications for the approaches to be used by the MEGAPROJECT COST Action.
Reviewing Current Literature
Before embarking on the review of inductive and deductive theory generation using cases, it is important to arrive at an unequivocal definition of ‘deduction’ and ‘induction.’ This is usefully provided by Gill and Johnson (Gill and Johnson 2002):
“Deduction: The deduction of particular instances from general inferences. It entails the development of a conceptual and theoretical structure that is then tested by observation.
Induction: The induction of general inferences from particular instances or the development of a theory from the observation of empirical reality.”
In the context of the MEGAPROJECT COST Action, a deductive approach to theory generation would mean generating a series of hypotheses or propositions about megaproject characteristics and performance and then testing the validity of these uses the multi-case experiences. An inductive approach to theory generation would involve reviewing the empirical evidence of the megaproject cases to generate a series of propositions or hypotheses formed from patterns of common experience.
At first glance, these approaches to theory generation can appear mutually exclusive. Certainly some of the most widely adopted case research methodologies appear, at their heart, inductive c.f. Eisenhardt’s search for similarities and differences in empirical data (Eisenhardt 1989) Yin’s description of ‘pattern-spotting’ (Yin 2004). (However, even these approaches do combine elements of deduction. Eisenhardt refers to travelling between generated hypotheses and the empirial data to test validity: Yin’s insistence on an a priori protocol dictates some elements of theoretic didactism to construct these.) Current literature also highlights the benefits of using a more inductive approach to theory generation(Locke 2007) (Heracleous and Lan 2012) especially in terms of their sensitivity to institutional issues though this is balanced by pleas for a more ‘pluralist’ approach (Welch, Piekkari et al. 2010).
However it may be erroneous to focus on the dichotomy between an ‘inductive’ and ‘deductive’ approach. As Parke states:
“In reality, of course, there is no competition, but rather an essential continuity and inseparability between inductive and deductive approaches to theory development.”
(Parkhe 1993)
Indeed the reality ( and desirability) of the case research activity is recognised as a ‘cycling’ of inductive-deductive approaches in a wide variety of diverse contexts including organizational process research, international business and healthcare studies(Orton 1997) Hyde 2000) (Fereday and Muir-Cochrane 2008). A strong coalescence of thinking indicates that case research requires a much more self-aware and contexturalized approach to theory generation recognising the approaches adopted to theory creation (Barratt, Choi et al. 2011) (Dubois and Gibbert 2010) (Piekkari, Welch et al. 2009)
The Experience of the Energy Group of the MEGAPROJECT COST Action
The following section reviews the experience of the Energy Group in generating theoretical propositions from the empirical data of their subset of the MEGAPROJECT portfolio.
i) Background to the Generation of Theoretical Propositions: It is important to recognise that the protocol adopted in data collection had an implicit and deductive influence on the generations of theoretical propositions. By capturing data using a template that captures project actors and their relationships, time-base project processes and the project environment, the Action limited theory that can be created to theory that includes these constructs.
ii) Deductive Generation of Propositions: The creation of theoretical propositions was carried out deductively and was initiated by group members brainstorming a list of propositions that related to megaprojects. (However this process did have an ‘inductive’ inspiration given the involvement of many of the group members in creating the cases and the review across cases that had previously taken place in the Energy Working Group Meeting in February 2012).
Having gathered the ‘brainstormed’ list of propositions, two parallel processes were then undertaken to develop and ratify the propositions. One approach used natural language analysis approaches to group and refine the propositions before validation, the other approach used the process of operationalisation to refine the list. This process is still underway.
iii) Inductive Generation of Propositions. An inductive approach that used Eisenhardt’s (op. cit.) approach of identifying similarities and differences across was used on a subset of the Energy Group’s cases relating to nuclear new build. This yielded the following additional constructs from which theoretical propositions could be generated
· the presence of similar megaprojects already on site
· single or series of megaprojects
· project financing (proportion of debt financing)
· overlaps of role between the builder and the owner
· differentials between local and national acceptability
iv) Reflections: The experience of the Energy Working group echoes that of the literature in the field. A combination of inductive and deductive theory generation needs to take place in order to capture the widest possible understanding of explanatory phenomenon.
Recommendations for the MEGAPROJECT COST Action
The experience of the wider literature and that of the Energy Working group suggests that the MEGAPROJECT COST Action needs to pursue an approach for theory generation that combines deductive and inductive ‘cycling.’ The generation of theory could be seeded with existing theoretical propositions derived from the Energy Group’s experience and from the wider megaproject literature but this will need to be combined with an atheoretic review of groups of cases potentially using a ‘similarities’ and ‘differences’ approach.
REFERENCES
Barratt, M., T. Y. Choi, et al. (2011). "Qualitative case studies in operations management: Trends, research outcomes, and future research implications." Journal of Operations Management 29(4): 329-342.
Dubois, A. and M. Gibbert (2010). "From complexity to transparency: managing the interplay between theory, method and empirical phenomena in IMM case studies." Industrial Marketing Management 39(1): 129-136.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). "Building theories from case study research." Academy of Management review: 532-550.
Fereday, J. and E. Muir-Cochrane (2008). "Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development." International Journal of Qualitative Methods 5(1): 80-92.
Gill, J. and P. Johnson (2002). Research methods for managers, Sage Publications Ltd.
Heracleous, L. and L. L. Lan (2012). "Agency theory, institutional sensitivity, and inductive reasoning: towards a legal perspective." Journal of Management Studies.
Locke, E. A. (2007). "The Case for Inductive Theory Building†." Journal of Management 33(6): 867-890.
Orton, J. D. (1997). "From inductive to iterative grounded theory: Zipping the gap between process theory and process data." Scandinavian Journal of Management 13(4): 419-438.
Parkhe, A. (1993). "" Messy" research, methodological predispositions, and theory development in international joint ventures." Academy of Management review: 227-268.
Piekkari, R., C. Welch, et al. (2009). "The case study as disciplinary convention." Organizational research methods 12(3): 567-589.
Page 4 of 4